Partly allowed

Krishnappa B v. M/S Royal Sundaram

Karnataka HC17 Oct 2022MFA/7578/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against a Motor Claims Tribunal award, the High Court enhanced the compensation for a motor accident victim, adding Rs.40,000 to the principal amount while retaining the interest rate of 8% p.a. as prescribed by precedent.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed in part. Compensation enhanced to Rs.5,03,430 without interest on the enhancement; interest at 8% p.a. applicable to the original amount.

Krishnappa B Vs M/S Royal Sundaram — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶6

MFA No.7578 OF 2011(MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

KRISHNAPPA B AGED 71 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/A NO. 3131, SUBBANNA GARDEN VIJAYA NAGAR, BANGALORE -40.

¶9

...APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI.S V PRAKASH, ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

1 . M/S ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO. 132, MANGALYA PUNARVAM BRIGADE ROAD, BANGALORE-25 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER.

¶13

2 . K VIJAYA KUMAR S/O G KRSHNAPPA R/O BUILDING NO. 1/2 ABBIGERE MAIN ROAD KAMMAGONDANAHALLI JALAHALLI, BANGALORE.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. K SURYANARAYANA RAO, ADV. FOR R1: NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W V/O DATED:14.06.2016)

¶16

¶17

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:12.01.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.1643/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE 14TH ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶18

THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

This appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor

¶21

Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has been filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 12.01.2011 passed by MACT, Bengaluru in MVC No.1643/2010.

¶22

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 28.08.2009 at about 08.15 a.m., at Goraguntepalya on NH-4 Bengaluru within the jurisdiction of Yeshwanthapura Traffic Police Station, when the claimant was walking on the left side at the spot road, at that time, the driver of the tipper lorry

¶23

¶24

bearing Registration No.KA 50 1523 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, came with high speed, dashed against the claimant. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized.

¶25

The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation. It was pleaded that he spent huge amount towards medical expenses, conveyance, etc. It was further pleaded that the accident occurred purely on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶26

On service of notice, the respondent No.1 appeared through counsel and filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied. It was pleaded that the petition itself is false and frivolous in the eye of law. The age, avocation

¶27

¶28

and income of the claimant and the medical expenses are denied. It was further pleaded that the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimant is exorbitant. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶29

The respondent No.2 did not appear before the Tribunal inspite of service of notice and was placed ex-parte.

¶30

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant himself was examined as PW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P11. On behalf of the respondents, neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries. The Tribunal

¶31

¶32

further held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.4,63,430/- along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.

¶33

The learned counsel for the claimant has contended that due to the accident, the claimant has suffered grievous injuries. He was inpatient in the hospital for a period of 37 days. Even after discharge from the hospital, he was not in a position to discharge his regular work. He has suffered lot of pain during treatment. Considering the same, the compensation of Rs.4,63,430/- awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal.

¶34

¶35

On the other hand, the learned counsel for

¶36

the Insurance Company has contended that the claimant has sustained simple injuries and he has not examined the doctor regarding disability and injuries suffered by him. Considering the evidence of the claimant and injuries mentioned in the Wound Certificate and considering the medical bills and discharge summary, the Tribunal has granted just and reasonable compensation and it does not call for interference. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶37

In view of the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ms.Joyeeta Bose and others –vVenkateshan.V and others (MFA 5896/2018 and connected matters disposed of on 24.8.2020), the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal at 8% p.a. on the compensation amount is on the higher side.

¶38

Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶39

¶40

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶41

and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

¶42

It is not in dispute that the claimant has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred

¶43

due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶44

As per Wound Certificate, the claimant has sustained laceration 8X2 cm. over the scalp, Subdural haemorrhage with head injury, fracture of right scapula, multiple fracture of ribs on right side with haemopneumothorax. He was treated as inpatient for a period of 37 days. He has spent more than Rs.3,58,430/- towards Medical Expenses. He has not examined the doctor regarding disability suffered by him. Considering the evidence of the claimant and injuries mentioned in the Wound Certificate and considering the medical bills and discharge summary,

¶45

¶46

I am of the opinion that in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, another Rs.40,000/- is awarded without interest.

¶47

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part . The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified. The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.5,03,430- as against Rs.4,63,430/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶48

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

¶49

The enhanced compensation shall not carry any interest.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

HA/-

Krishnappa B v. M/S Royal Sundaram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishnappa B v. M/S Royal Sundaram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. K.Nagendar @ Dinna Vs Sri. K.Girish

Siddamma Vs Keshava Murthy

Revanna Vs Keshava Murthy M C

Sri. Srinivasa R Vs M/S Technocast Foundary

Kaleemulla Vs the Head Master

Lokesh Vs Mahesh B R